Download - International Nut and Dried Fruit Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

varieties and/or hybrids of these.No comments were submitted on this section and EPA adopts thechange as proposed without change.F. Amendment to 40 CFR 180.1(h)The final rule deletes 40 CFR 180.1(h) that reads: ``Unlessotherwise specified, tolerances and exemptions established under theregulations in this part apply to residues from only preharvestapplication of the chemical.''One comment was received concerning how a person would know if atolerance is based on pre-harvest or post-harvest use. The commenterasserted that growers need to know what residues they should expectfrom pre-harvest use in order to compare maximum residue limits (MRLs,the international term for residue standards comparable to toleranceregulations under U.S. law) abroad to know if such commodities may beexported.Given the enforcement concerns articulated in the proposed rule,EPA does not think that the commenter has provided a sufficientrational for maintaining 40 CFR 180.1(h). EPA does not believe that theissue raised by the commenter--the need to determine whether preharvestresidues comport with international MRLs--will often be aproblem. The overwhelming majority of pesticide tolerances are setbased on pre-harvest use of a pesticide. Further, EPA attempts toharmonize tolerances with foreign MRLs, and generally, harmonization isnot a problem. Thus, in most cases, comparing the U.S. tolerance levelwith the international MRL will indicate to a grower that pre-harvesttreatment of a commodity will not be inconsistent with internationalMRLs. If a grower comes across an instance where a U.S. tolerance ishigher than a MRL and the grower thinks that a higher U.S. tolerance isdue to a post-harvest use, the grower may contact EPA for moreinformation about that particular tolerance. EPA currently collectsvaluable information about tolerances on its Web site. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/part-180.html%23info). If information onwhat tolerances are driven by post-harvest uses turns out to becritical information EPA will consider adding that information to itsWeb site.EPA is adopting its proposal without change.G. Other CommentsOne comment was received concerning the new crop group and cropsubgroups; the commenter asked whether the residue chemistry guidelineswill be updated or an EPA memorandum issued to address the number oftrials and locations needed?EPA does not believe that the residue chemistry guidelines need tobe updated at this time or a separate memorandum issued to address thenumber of trials and locations. EPA plans to update these guidelineswhen more of the crop groups are revised, as this is an ongoing[[Page 76287]]effort. For the present, the current residue chemistry guidelines whichaddress the number of field trials and locations should still be usedfor the newly added crop groups and crop subgroups.The People's Republic of China suggested that this crop group ruleshould be regarded as a measure under the Agreement on Application ofSanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) because this cropgrouping regulation has a direct relation on the establishment ofpesticide tolerances. According to the WTO/SPS agreement, the U.S.should submit a notification to WTO. The commenter hoped that the U.S.will fulfill its transparency obligation and provide other membersnotice of the measure and an opportunity to comment on it.EPA notes that the WTO was notified of the proposed rule as ofMarch 17, 2010, under the SPS Agreement. The notification, WTO DocumentG/SPS/N/USA/1980, included a link to the public docket, where theproposed rule can be found in its entirety.The People's Republic of China inquired as to the next steps afterthis revision, since the proposed revision did not specify thepesticide tolerances for the products. The commenter hoped that theU.S. would provide a timetable for the establishment of MRLs for theproducts in the revision, especially goji berry. Additionally thecommenter asked if EPA would notify the WTO in a timely fashion andprovide other members with a 60-day comment period when EPA establishesMRLs. Finally, the People's Republic of China indicated that it willcontinue to follow this issue closely and hopes to comment on anyfuture tolerances for goji berry.No specific tolerances are established by this rule revising thecrop group. Tolerances for pre-existing crop groups continue in effectand do not apply to the revised crop group.As discussed in Unit II.C. of the Proposed Rule (75 FR 807),tolerances established for revised crop groups will include the newcrop group number (and new name, if applicable) so that it is apparenton the face of the tolerance regulation what commodities are covered.EPA will initially retain pre-existing crop groups that have been
superseded by revised crop groups, but EPA will not establish newtolerances for the pre-existing groups. EPA plans to eventually converttolerances for any pre-existing crop groups to tolerances with thecoverage of the revised crop group. This conversion will be effectedboth through the registration review process and in the course ofestablishing new tolerances for a pesticide. Therefore, no specificfruiting vegetable group 8 pesticide tolerances will be converted totolerances for fruiting vegetable group 8-10, including goji berry,upon codifying the revised fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10 in theCFR. Pesticide residues on any additional members of a revised cropgroup will not be legal until the EPA establishes a new tolerance forthat pesticide on the revised crop group.EPA will propose new tolerances for the revised crop group in theFederal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment,consistent with U.S. law. The U.S. also plans to continue to notify theWTO of proposed tolerance actions, consistent with the WTO/SPSAgreement. If commenters believe that any of the tolerances that areproposed in the future will not be adequate for any form of a commoditythat is in the crop group, they should submit comments and supportingdata on the specific tolerances when they are proposed and notified.Another commenter noted that it would be beneficial for theEuropean Union (E.U.) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)crop groups to be harmonized, in much the same way as the U.S. andCanada are working with the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues(CCPR) to harmonize NAFTA crop groups with those being developed aspart of the revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Feeds.EPA recognizes the benefits of internationally harmonized cropgroups, and notes that the E.U. has been involved in the efforts todevelop the Codex crop groups and to revise the NAFTA crop groups.Petitions submitted to the EPA to revise crop groups are developedby the International Crop Groupings Consulting Committee (ICGCC), whichis an international body that includes NAFTA, Codex, and E.U. members.The ICGCC workgroup members provide valuable internationalperspectives, including commodity and MRL information, in developingcrop group proposals to be submitted to the EPA. Beyond the NAFTApartner involvement in developing Codex crop groups, other CCPRdelegations from the E.U. and around the world provide internationalinput and participate in the process. Through the partnership with theCCPR, the EPA believes that the NAFTA crop group revisions are beingharmonized with Codex to the extent possible at this time; the E.U.will have to ultimately determine to what degree it will align with theCodex crop groups that are established.Finally, EPA received a comment concerning ``zero tolerance'' beingunachievable.The purpose of the crop revisions is to provide a vehicle toestablish tolerances for residues of pesticides on food commodities.Therefore, the comment regarding ``zero tolerance'' does not apply tothis action.V. The Final RuleAfter fully considering all comments, EPA is promulgating the ruleas proposed.VI. ImplementationWhen a crop group is amended in a manner that expands or contractsits coverage of commodities, EPA will (1) retain the pre-existing cropgroup in 40 CFR 180.41; (2) insert the revised crop group immediatelyafter the pre-existing crop group in the Code of Federal Regulations;and (3) title the revised crop group in a way that clearlydifferentiates it from the pre-existing crop group.The revised crop group will retain roughly the same name and numberas the pre-existing group except the number will be followed by ahyphen and the final digits of the year established. (e.g., Crop Group8-10).EPA will initially retain pre-existing crop groups that have beensuperseded by revised crop groups. EPA will not establish newtolerances under the pre-existing groups. Further, EPA plans toeventually convert tolerances for any pre-existing crop group totolerances with coverage under the revised crop group. This conversionwill be effected both through the registration review process and inthe course of evaluating new uses for a pesticide. EPA requests thatpetitioners for tolerances address this issue in their petitions.For existing petitions for which a Notice of Filing has beenpublished, the Agency will attempt to conform these petitions to thisrule.VII. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. Executive Order 12866Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning andReview (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) has designated this proposed rule as a not-significantregulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order.
Page 1 and 2: [Federal Register: December 8, 2010
Page 3: One cultivar of small nonbell peppe
Page 7 and 8: In determining whether a rule has a
Page 9 and 10: 0g. Redesignate newly redesignated
Page 11 and 12: Orange or tangerine/mandarin.......

Download - International Nut and Dried Fruit Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?